And here come the tax hikes!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
***


And I thought his campaign relied on his word of not tax hikes. NOT ONE SINGLE DIME I believe was his word. I'll put that in the file next to the "Debate health care on C-SPAN"

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

This part I'm fine with. It was entirely appropriate for the Bush tax cuts in the 2001-2003 time to have expiration dates, and for most taxes, should have expired sooner. The year prior, the reigning President and Congress can discuss again if they should be renewed or modified.

[marks2065 0]

The koolaid impares the ability to think clearly and leaves you open to abuse by the government.

[billvon 3,120]

Good! Time to purchase our country back from the Chinese.

[DanG 1]

The "article" says, "if the tax cuts are allowed to expire." Obama's plan keeps most of the tax cuts in place, and adds new tax incentives for working families and small businesses.

Your article is a hit piece, not journalism.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

The "article" says, "if the tax cuts are allowed to expire." Obama's plan keeps most of the tax cuts in place, and adds new tax incentives for working families and small businesses.

Your article is a hit piece, not journalism.

and after Obama's first year of broken promises and lies, what story is probably more believable?

[DanG 1]

He's put out his proposal. It is not a story, it is a proposal. There is no way to lie about it. Either it is in the proposal or not.

The author of this piece is very careful not to write that Obama's proposal would raise taxes, only that allowing all the tax breaks to expire would raise taxes. Obama's proposal only has some of the tax breaks expiring. The article is being misleading at best.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

He's put out his proposal. It is not a story, it is a proposal. There is no way to lie about it. Either it is in the proposal or not.

Seems like he hates marriage though. Higher taxes would apply to singles grossing 200, couples grossing 250. The marriage tax used to be just a couple thousand, but this would dramatically increase it.

(And before you grouse that this is big money, bear in mind the cost of living in major cities like SF is double that many cities in the interior)

[DanG 1]

I wouldn't grouse about that at all. It is inequitable. I personally don't think there should be any tax benefit or penalty to being married.

I also appreciate that you have a specific complaint about the proposal itself. The author of the article in the OP didn't bother with details like that.

- Dan G

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

He's put out his proposal. It is not a story, it is a proposal. There is no way to lie about it. Either it is in the proposal or not.

Seems like he hates marriage though. Higher taxes would apply to singles grossing 200, couples grossing 250. The marriage tax used to be just a couple thousand, but this would dramatically increase it.

(And before you grouse that this is big money, bear in mind the cost of living in major cities like SF is double that many cities in the interior)

You could always move to San Leandro.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
***


And I thought his campaign relied on his word of not tax hikes. NOT ONE SINGLE DIME I believe was his word. I'll put that in the file next to the "Debate health care on C-SPAN"

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

So how would you propose paying for the military, medicare, etc? Borrow even more from China?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

So how would you propose paying for the military, medicare, etc? Borrow even more from China?

make EVERYONE pay their fare share and cut the budget at the dollar amount collected would be a good start.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
***


And I thought his campaign relied on his word of not tax hikes. NOT ONE SINGLE DIME I believe was his word. I'll put that in the file next to the "Debate health care on C-SPAN"

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

So how would you propose paying for the military, medicare, etc? Borrow even more from China?

Kallend, you stinking socialist, you know that tax cuts lead to prosperity, didn't you see this under Reagan?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So how would you propose paying for the military, medicare, etc? Borrow even more from China?

make EVERYONE pay their fare share and cut the budget at the dollar amount collected would be a good start.

Their fare share, what is this, a ride?

So do you think spending as much as the entire rest of the world on defense is a good place to start cuts? I don't expect an answer; RUN .

As for fair share, what does that mean? The top 20% of wealth-holders hold 93% of all cash, who are you referring to?

[billvon 3,120]

>make EVERYONE pay their fare share and cut the budget at the dollar
>amount collected would be a good start.

Wouldn't work in theory. I suspect even you would not support cutting off support for US troops if we didn't have enough money, or shutting down the CDC, air traffic control and the GPS system because we ran out of money.

However, an alternative to that (a balanced budget requirement) might work. Require a balanced budget every year, with taxes set by spending level. Make it very clear what you are paying for, so that you can see why your taxes went up (or down.) It will give people more visibility into the process, and help us avoid getting ever further into debt.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The top 20% of wealth-holders hold 93% of all cash, who are you referring to?

NOT Scrooge McDuck swimming around in money that isn't earning anything, like you are.

The rich make their money work for them - it can't do that stuffed in a mattress.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The top 20% of wealth-holders hold 93% of all cash, who are you referring to?

NOT Scrooge McDuck swimming around in money that isn't earning anything, like you are.

The rich make their money work for them - it can't do that stuffed in a mattress.

Swimming around money they aren't earning? I have one of the dirtiest, nastiest jobs right now, what the fuck are you talking about? As an adult I've never received welfare, except unemployment, you really don't know a thing.

As for the rich and their money, I was addressing the "fare share" comment by another poster, try to keep it in context for once. The fact that they make their hard stolen money work for them has nothing to do with who pays what taxes. Try to keep up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>make EVERYONE pay their fare share and cut the budget at the dollar
>amount collected would be a good start.

Wouldn't work in theory. I suspect even you would not support cutting off support for US troops if we didn't have enough money, or shutting down the CDC, air traffic control and the GPS system because we ran out of money.

However, an alternative to that (a balanced budget requirement) might work. Require a balanced budget every year, with taxes set by spending level. Make it very clear what you are paying for, so that you can see why your taxes went up (or down.) It will give people more visibility into the process, and help us avoid getting ever further into debt.

You mean like GHWB tried and Clinton did. As well, the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT REAGAN AND GWB DID.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

However, an alternative to that (a balanced budget requirement) might work. Require a balanced budget every year, with taxes set by spending level. Make it very clear what you are paying for, so that you can see why your taxes went up (or down.) It will give people more visibility into the process, and help us avoid getting ever further into debt.

i like this idea. i could go along with it. politicians would quickly learn that if they wanted job security they would learn to control spending. of course there would still be the same arguements about what social programs should get funded, but all in all it would they would probably figure out how to run things more efficiently.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

However, an alternative to that (a balanced budget requirement) might work. Require a balanced budget every year, with taxes set by spending level. Make it very clear what you are paying for, so that you can see why your taxes went up (or down.) It will give people more visibility into the process, and help us avoid getting ever further into debt.

i like this idea. i could go along with it. politicians would quickly learn that if they wanted job security they would learn to control spending. of course there would still be the same arguements about what social programs should get funded, but all in all it would they would probably figure out how to run things more efficiently.

Gee, the 2 worst spenders in perhaps world history were reelected. Fascist Ronnie and GWB.

[TrophyHusband 0]

i don't have a problem with this. i don't see allowing tax breaks that are already set to expire go ahead and expire as him raising taxes.

i also don't have a problem with the amount of taxes we pay. i can't remember off the top of my head what our marginal tax rate is, but the total we paid on our taxable income is just over 10%. if i did the math on what it would be on the entire income before deductions, we would drop into the single digits. my problem comes with the way money is being spent. of course i think that the federal government should focus on national security and a few other things and leave everything else up to the states.

where i would have a problem with obama is if he got cap and trade or some other energy bill passed that raised the cost of enerygy. this would hurt middle class and poor families much more that a raise in taxes. here in florida we pay more for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel that we do in federal income taxes.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The top 20% of wealth-holders hold 93% of all cash, who are you referring to?

NOT Scrooge McDuck swimming around in money that isn't earning anything, like you are.

The rich make their money work for them - it can't do that stuffed in a mattress.

Swimming around money they aren't earning?

"swimming around in money that isn't earning anything" - reading really IS fundamental.

Quote

I have one of the dirtiest, nastiest jobs right now, what the fuck are you talking about? As an adult I've never received welfare, except unemployment, you really don't know a thing.

This is german to the conversation, how, other than your usual smear attempts on anyone that disagrees with you?

Quote

As for the rich and their money, I was addressing the "fare share" comment by another poster, try to keep it in context for once.

I was - YOU were the one that mentioned the rich and all that cash they evidently have laying around in piles.

Quote

The fact that they make their hard stolen money work for them has nothing to do with who pays what taxes. Try to keep up.

Then why did you mention it, other than the usual "the rich are SOOO greedy" whining?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The "article" says, "if the tax cuts are allowed to expire." Obama's plan keeps most of the tax cuts in place, and adds new tax incentives for working families and small businesses.

Your article is a hit piece, not journalism.

So how many people will you hire for a $5000 tax credit?

You know how many I'm hiring? None.

You know why? It's not tax breaks that help a company make money.

You know why most companies are posting profits last year? Expense cuts.

You know what expense cuts have been taken? Laying people off their jobs.

You know who pays most of the taxes? Wealthy people.

You know which segment of business employs most Americans? Small business.

You know that a sole proprietor whose business made $200K last year is considered? Wealthy.

A full two-thirds of the "stimulus" went to unemployment and entitlement. Less than a tenth went to "shovel ready" "rebuilding infrastructure" items. Paying people not to work is not a stimulus that I know of.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The top 20% of wealth-holders hold 93% of all cash, who are you referring to?

NOT Scrooge McDuck swimming around in money that isn't earning anything, like you are.

The rich make their money work for them - it can't do that stuffed in a mattress.

Swimming around money they aren't earning? I have one of the dirtiest, nastiest jobs right now, what the fuck are you talking about? As an adult I've never received welfare, except unemployment, you really don't know a thing.

As for the rich and their money, I was addressing the "fare share" comment by another poster, try to keep it in context for once. The fact that they make their hard stolen money work for them has nothing to do with who pays what taxes. Try to keep up.

I love how many heated arguments occur on this website as a result of people not paying attention to what the other person is arguing or, in this case, not paying attention to what they themselves just asked.

...goes great with coffee.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

You know who pays most of the taxes? Wealthy people.

.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

You know who has the most money? Wealthy people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.